Probate jurisdiction; MCL 700.1302; Constructive trust authority; MCL 700.1303; In re Filibeck Estate; MCL 700.1308; Kammer Asphalt Paving Co, Inc v East China Twp Schs; Accounting of agent under a Power of Attorney (POA)

The court held that the probate court had statutory and equitable authority to maintain a constructive trust restraining funds distributed to respondent as a beneficiary pending resolution of intertwined estate, trust, and fiduciary-duty allegations. After the death of the parties’ mother, the parties disputed whether real property was ever properly transferred into a revocable trust and whether respondent, while holding their mother’s POA, diverted or misused the mother’s financial-account funds and manipulated beneficiary designations before distributions were made. The original probate court ordered respondent to provide an accounting and ordered a constructive trust. After a change of venue, the new probate court denied respondent’s motion to lift the restraint on the disputed funds, treating the request as reconsideration of the earlier order and maintaining the constructive trust while discovery proceeded in the consolidated proceedings and a related case. On appeal, the court held that the probate court’s jurisdiction under MCL 700.1302 and its concurrent legal and equitable authority under MCL 700.1303 permitted it to “determine a property right or interest,” “impose a constructive trust,” and “require, hear, or settle an accounting of an agent under a” POA. The court also reiterated that a constructive trust may be imposed when necessary “‘to do equity or to prevent unjust enrichment’” and where the holder of legal title “‘may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest.’” It concluded the restraint served to preserve potentially recoverable assets while the probate court determined whether respondent breached fiduciary duties and whether the assets properly belonged to the estate or trust. Affirmed.